Looks Like We’ve Lost Alabama
And Tennessee. And Mississippi. And …

It turns out the Republican Party is responsible for the tornadoes that so ravaged large parts of the south. At least that’s what the leftwing Center for American Progress says:

“The congressional delegations of these states – Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky – overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous,” wrote CAP’s Brad Johnson. “They are deliberately ignoring the warning from scientists.”

Johnson’s justification is that climate scientist Kevin Trenberth warned the American Meteorological Society in January that “Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warning rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’”

It follows that if all weather events are caused by global warming, then any damage or deaths that result from any weather event are the fault of anyone who questions the hypothesis (and/or doubts the solutions proposed by the alarmists).

And of course, Obama’s head of FEMA is complicit too, since his reaction was: “Actually what we’re seeing is springtime.”

Note: Johnson later denied that he had blamed the Republicans, but I think the first sentence quoted above is pretty clear.

Academic Integrity: “Does It Really Matter That Much?
There have been two recent instances where highly-praised books that are frequently assigned as high school or college reading have been exposed as being factually fraudulent. The response of educators has been interesting – they don’t give a damn.

60 Minutes a few weeks ago ran an expose of Three Cups of Tea, supposedly a memoir detailing Greg Mortensen’s work in building girls’ schools in the Middle East. Except that much of it isn’t true, many of the schools were never built or aren’t operating, and most of the donations to Mortensen’s charity go into expenses (especially buying his books).

Three Cups of Tea was assigned to all incoming freshmen at Mississippi State University in 2010. Linda Morse, chair of the First-Year Reading Experience at MSU, would not say whether she believed students had been assigned a fraudulent book. But she did speak highly of the events and discussions that sprung from using the book in MSU’s reading program.

“We had our local (rabbi), we had a minister, and we had someone from the local mosque speak about what fasting means,” she said. “We used the themes in the book to help explore cultural themes that our students may not have been exposed to.”

One of the events featured Mortenson himself. Morse held a positive view of his visit, even in light of the recent controversy.

“I found him to be a passionate speaker and a very humble man,” Morse said. “I think our students were exposed to someone who had a very important message to talk about with them.”

Several other universities that assign Mortensen’s book take a similarly casual attitude toward truth. I like Lehigh’s comment: “Instructors can raise the issues of honesty in their classes, if they wish.” One can almost feel the shrug of disinterest.

John Steinbeck’s classic, Travels with Charley, a staple of reading lists for fifty years now, was also recently revealed to be mostly fiction, to which the response by one scholar was, “Does it really matter that much?”

What do Three Cups of Tea and Travels with Charley have in common? Both are chock full of liberal attitudes – PC to the max.

“Truth doesn’t matter as much as just getting the attitude ingrained in students by having them read this book,” Thorne said.

For Steigerwald, both students and scholars would be better served by applying some skepticism to the things they read.

“We should be on our guard, especially when you’re doing a book where you like everything you hear and see,” Steigerwald said. “The more you agree with it, the more it should raise the question in your mind, ‘Is it believable?’ ”

Wodehouse on Socialism
Speaking of books, my favorite writer is P.G. Wodehouse, and I am currently reading one of his lesser, early works, The Prince and Betty, written in 1912. I enjoyed this passage, describing the editor of the magazine, Peaceful Moments, leaving on vacation and giving instructions to his assistant:

“Well,” chirruped the holiday-maker – he was a little man with a long neck, and he always chirruped – “Well, I think that is all, Mr. Smith. Oh, ah, yes! The stenographer. You will need a new stenographer.”

The Peaceful Moments stenographer had resigned her position three days before, in order to get married.

“Unquestionably, Comrade Renshaw,” said Smith. “A blonde.”

Mr. Renshaw looked annoyed.

“I have told you before, Mr. Smith, I object to your addressing me as Comrade. It is not – it is not – er – fitting.”

Smith waved a deprecating hand.

“Say no more,” he said. “I will correct the habit. I have been studying the principles of Socialism somewhat deeply of late, and I came to the conclusion that I must join the cause. It looked good to me. You work for the equal distribution of property, and start in by swiping all you can and sitting on it. A noble scheme.”

A Tale of Two Recoveries
I’ll continue the book theme with that headline, but I promise to drop it for the rest of the post. John Lott writes of the first quarter GDP numbers:

Seven quarters into the Obama recovery, GDP growth has averaged an annual rate of only 2.8%. In contrast, since 1970, the first seven quarters of previous recoveries averaged 4.6%. The poor growth rate is especially surprising since the preceding recession was so severe, there should have been ample room for high growth as the unemployed returned to work. For example, the Reagan recovery followed a similarly high unemployment rate and saw the economy grow at an average annual growth rate of 7 percent.

A Quick Glimpse of Our Future
The inevitable result of any good being provided free (or at prices far below cost) by the government is that demand increases. If there is not an unlimited supply, the inevitable result of the increased demand is shortages and/or budget overruns. The only possible governmental response to those problems is rationing.

And it appears that is what’s happening in Britain as the government tries to rein in costs at the National Health Service:

The new investigation by GP, a trade journal, looked at the number of “individual patient funding requests” made by family doctors or hospital consultants in recent years. These are made when a clinician believes that their patient needs a particular procedure or drug, but managers at the local Primary Care Trust do not normally fund it even if it is recommended by Nice, the advisory body.

According to the results of responses to Freedom of Information requests by 103 PCTs, the number of requests rose from 53,000 to 62,000 between 2008-09 and 2010-11, an increase of 17 per cent.

At the same time, the proportion approved fell from 59 per cent to 46 per cent, a drop of 22 per cent.

Bloomberg Wants to Turn Detroit into a Concentration Camp for Immigrants
Well, okay, maybe that isn’t exactly what Mayor Nanny meant, but I don’t think it’s a wholly unreasonable interpretation of this:

And I’ll give you a good example of how you can fix some of the problems in America. Take a look at the big old industrial cities – Detroit, for example. Got a great mayor in Mayor Bing. But the population has left. You got to do something about that. And if I were the federal government, assuming you could wave a magic wand and pull everybody together, you pass a law letting immigrants come in as long as they agree to go to Detroit and live there for five or 10 years, start businesses, take jobs, whatever.

As Freeman Hunt said: “I’d comment on the Bloomberg comment, but it’s hard to type with my jaw sitting on the keyboard.”

The Weekly Mitch Pitch
Roll Call had an interesting character study on Mitch Daniels this past week, focusing on his early days as a staffer on Capitol Hill, and his legendary cheapitude. Not a lot of substance to it really, though I learned that Daniels was offered an appointment to the Senate to replace Dan Quayle, but turned it down. Still, it was a fun read. I particularly enjoyed the mental images engendered by this passage:

Daniels was also intensely loyal to his staff. One former colleague remembered calling him at 2 a.m. to ask him to come over to his place and help him exterminate a handful of rats who had eaten through the wall in his apartment. The duo trapped the rats, and while his colleague beat them with a racquetball racquet, Daniels stabbed the rodents with an ice pick.

Uh-oh – Daniels just lost the PETA endorsement.

Obama’s Tiny Bump
Sunday night, we had a few commenters saying that President Obama would get a lift in his approval ratings of epic proportions. One such:

Look at other major foreign/military events – Iraq War I, captuere of Saddam, September 11th, Pearl Harbor, fall of the Berlin Wall, etc. Get an average from those events, tack on a few, and I think you’d have what you’ll see here.

We were also hearing that the effect would be long-lasting and might guarantee an easy Obama win in 2012. More sober observers (self included) pointed out the ephemeral nature of such things in the past (Bush I and Churchill were cited) and suggested a much more modest and short-term gain for Obama. It may be early for the victory lap, but RCP is reporting an overall gain in approval of 4.5, while Rasmussen’s index has him up about five since the announcement, roughly matching an uptick that had preceded it.

He may still pick up a few more points, but clearly this has done little to improve voters’ overall perception of the president.

Update: Indy 500 Fires Trump

Donald Trump had been chosen to be the driver of the pace car at the Indy 500 later this month (why?), but he’s been dumped.

The Donald’s latest celebrity apprenticeship—as honorary pace car driver at the Indianapolis 500 centennial later this month—ran afoul of the sport’s faithful, a Democratic state representative and a group of Baptist ministers after the real estate mogul caused a national stir demanding President Obama produce a birth certificate to prove his citizenship.

One fan, Michael Wallack, started a Facebook page—We Don’t Want Donald Trip to Drive the Indy 500 Pace Car—on April 8. Today the page has more than 18,000 fans.

“He has no relationship to the track, to the race, to racing toIndianapolis,” Wallack told ESPN. “Then when he started going off on the birther stuff, that prompted me to do more and that’s when I started the page.”

Add your own miscellany in the comments.

Hat-Tip The Argo Journal & Ben Smith:

It has been looking more and more likely that Hizzoner would toss his hat into the ring once again, but his statements after his speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association in Washington D.C. yesterday pretty much seal the deal for me (via Politico):

Giuliani took only one question following his half-hour speech. Asked whether he had decided to launch a 2012 White House bid, he said “not yet,” but that it’s a possibility.

“I will sure think about it. … It’s too early and I want to see how it all develops,” he answered. “My major goal is to elect a Republican in 2012. If it turns out that I’m the best one to do that, I can probably be talked into doing it or convince myself to do it,” he said.

“If I thought somebody else had a better chance of doing it, I would be a very enthusiastic supporter of somebody else,” he added.

Be sure to read the rest here.

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

Newt Gingrich has confirmed to Hotline on Call that he will join the GOP primary race “by the 10th or 11th” of May (next Tuesday or Wednesday). The Gingrich campaign-to-be also confirmed that they have chosen Rob Johnson to be Gingrich’s campaign manager. Johnson is from Texas and most recently headed up Rick Perry’s re-election campaign.

(Race 4 2012 reported back in March that Johnson was joining Newt’s exploratory team. At the time, the hire was called a “coup” and a “very big get” for Gingrich.)

Here’s hoping this campaign rollout goes a little better than the last attempt did.

PPP (D) Missouri 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Mike Huckabee 28%
  
• Mitt Romney 13%
  
• Donald Trump 12%
• Newt Gingrich 10%
  
• Michele Bachmann 9%
• Sarah Palin 8%
• Ron Paul 6%
• Tim Pawlenty
• Someone else/Undecided 9%

(more…)

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

When you think about politics, which of the following sets of issues is most important to you?

• Government spending and power 37% [38%] {35%}
• Business and the economy 36% [32%] {31%}
• Social issues and moral values 15% [17%] {17%}
• National security and foreign policy 12% [12%] {15%}

Among those who say government spending and power are most important issues

• Mike Huckabee 19% [22%] {18%}
• Mitt Romney 17% [18%] {17%}
• Sarah Palin 9% [9%] {11%}

Among those who say business and the economy are most important issues

• Mitt Romney 18% [15%] {20%}
• Mike Huckabee 15% [15%] {13%}
• Sarah Palin 14% [13%] {17%}

Among those who say social issues and moral values are most important issues

• Mike Huckabee 26% [24%] {28%}
• Sarah Palin 18% [14%] {19%}
• Mitt Romney 8% [9%] {7%}

Among those who say national security and foreign policy are most important issues

• Sarah Palin 19% [16%] {22%}
• Mike Huckabee 18% [14%] {20%}
• Mitt Romney 16% [17%] {17%}

Survey of 1,000 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted April 15-20, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points; +/- 2 percentage points for the total aggregate sample of 3,304 Republicans polled as part of Gallup Daily tracking April 15-20, March 18-22, and Feb. 18-20, 2011. Results from the poll conducted March 18-22, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 18-20, 2011 are in curly brackets.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

CNN/Opinion Research Birther Survey

Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in the United States, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another country?

• Definitely born in U.S. 58% (46%)
• Probably born in the U.S. 22% (26%)
• Probably born in another country 10% (15%)
• Definitely born in another country 7% (10%)

(more…)

Mitch Daniels has received some flack for his contention that he’s “not really” ready to debate the President on foreign policy issues. As the resident prophet of foreign policy’s importance here at race, this assertion doesn’t bother me much; in fact, it’s kind of refreshing. If Daniels isn’t ready, then saying so, and acknowledging that he’s got work to do on the foreign policy front, is actually probably a good thing, and Mitch has plenty of time to flesh out his knowledge of these issues. In part, this post is a series of recommendations for the governor as to how exactly he should do this. Mostly, however, it’s a primer not only for Daniels, but for all domestically-oriented candidates who need to prepare to combat the President on these issues.

1. Start with what you know. While it’s important to have good foreign policy advisors, the most important thing any candidate can bring to the foreign policy arena are his/her own tendencies, experiences and instincts. A foreign policy created ex nihilo by a series of advisors who each have their own particular axes to grind won’t cut it. Rather, it is imperative for the candidate–and his/her policy team–to determine the core values which will animate the future President’s thinking, and build from there. Daniels, for example, has a reputation for straight talking fiscal austerity. A President Daniels, then, should probably approach foreign policy from a “bang for the buck” perspective, which seeks to maximize the return the US can get for any resources it spends on foreign policy. I could see Daniels using “wasting asset” theory, as, for example, Andrew Krepinevich did in Foreign Affairs, to make strategic assessments of US defense spending. Daniels might also undertake a more thorough “audit” of US soft power resources. Obama and left-leaning foreign policy makers in general love discussing the importance of soft power, but a President Daniels might actually look at ways in which these vast–and generally inexpensive–non-military tools of foreign policy might be used strategically. This includes foreign aid, which could–but really doesn’t–serve US strategic interests in many cases.

2. Are you a fox, or a hedgehog? The old saying about foxes–those who can grasp a number of complex ideas but have difficulty with big concepts–and hedgehogs–those who grasp a few large concepts very deeply–is a critically important one for presidential candidates, in that, if one is a fox, for example, one ought not try to be a hedgehog, and vice-a-versa. Again, this requires a lot of self-knowledge on the candidate’s part. If, for example, Mitch Daniels is a fox, then it makes sense for him to be involved, personally, in the minutia of North Korea, nuclear proliferation and Middle East peace policy, and to hire advisors who can help him synthesize his thoughts into an over-arching grand strategy. If he is a hedgehog, then he himself can provide the grand strategy, and allow advisors to handle the fox-like details.

3. Vulnerabilities can also be opportunities. There are already rumblings in some quarters about Daniels’ Arab-American heritage and, more to the point, his acceptance of an award from the left-leaning Arab-American Institute. But such potential vulnerabilities can also be opportunities, if perceived in the right light. As someone whose grandparents left Syria to come to America, Daniels is perhaps uniquely positioned to speak to the desire for freedom in that country, a bastion of anti-Israel, pro-Iran influence in the Middle East. Indeed, as Katrina Trinko reports, Daniels did precisely this at the Arab-American Institute this week. Daniels can go further, discussing issues such as the role of minority rights in Middle Eastern democracy, and possibly even gently nudging some of the Arab governments in the region on the less-than-constructive role they play in Arab and Israeli peace. Of course, Daniels should–and likely will–reaffirm the US’ strong alliance with Israel, but he may also be able to do some serious truth-telling in this seemingly intractable conflict. Other potential contenders should learn this lesson as well; John Huntsman, who has probably the biggest foreign policy liability and opportunities of any candidate in the field, should begin considering exactly how he can turn the tables on Obama’s none-too-subtle ploy to take him out of 2012 contention by appointing him Ambassador to China. The opportunities are very real.

4. Don’t play “oil Minister of Kyrgyzstan” gotcha with journalists. Foreign policy is a journalists’ favorite gotcha topic; the fact that most of them know less about the topic than your average dragon fly themselves is, of course, irrelevant. New York Times leaders like nothing better than to titter about, as Jonah Goldberg once put it, the fact that candidate X doesn’t know who the oil minister of Kyrgyzstan is. There are two ways to deal with that issue. One is a curt “No, I don’t know who the oil minister of Kyrgyzstan is, but I’m sure my Secretaries of state, energy and commerce will be on good terms with him/her, since it’s their job”. The other, if one is of a foxy inclination, is to bone up on major world leaders and their governments, and make the journalist look stupid. In general, option 1 is recommended; journalists, as a rule, have a long memory for people who make them look stupid, and it’s not likely to lead to better coverage. On the other hand, a candidate who does have this knowledge can sometimes gain points, if he/she gives a thoughtful answer to a “gotcha” type question.

Of course, there are a lot of other pitfalls and possibilities for Mitch Daniels, or any other candidate looking to earn a foreign policy reputation. But the most important rule is to know yourself, and your strengths, weaknesses, and inclinations. Authenticity on foreign policy has to be developed over time, but it is no less important than in any other field. For this, if for nothing else, Mitch Daniels did the right thing by acknowledging his own lack of readiness. Now, if he does decide to run, he needs to make doing so a priority.

From the official release:

“Today’s disheartening unemployment increase is another reminder of the failure of President Obama’s economic policies. We are in the third year of unemployment above 8%. This figure is not just a statistic – 20 million Americans are out of work, underemployed, or have stopped looking for work. The cost of the President’s inexperience and failed liberal policies is borne by families across the country. To get people back to work will take experienced economic leadership, a commitment to rein in government, and a credible plan to make America the best place in the world for growth and jobs.”

Related: U.S. Payrolls Grew 244,000 in April; Unemployment Climbs to 9%

CNN/Opinion Research 2012 Presidential Survey

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Mike Huckabee 16%
• Donald Trump 14%
• Mitt Romney 13%
• Sarah Palin 11%
• Newt Gingrich 10%
• Ron Paul 10%
• Michele Bachmann 5%
• Mitch Daniels 5%
• Tim Pawlenty 3%
• Rick Santorum 2% (
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Someone else (vol.) 3%
• None/No one (vol.) 4%
• No opinion 2%

(more…)

First, let me say that Tim Pawlenty is currently my number two guy in the Republican primary field (as he is with many folks, I suspect). I like him, and should Romney falter in the primaries I would likely end up supporting him (unless Mitch Daniels jumped in the race, then it would be neck and neck between the two of them).

So it really pained me to watch Pawlenty’s performance last night. He seemed to live up to (and in moments exceed) his negative stereotypes as being vanilla, bland, and safe.

In a field populated by third or fourth tier candidates, this was supposed to be Pawlenty’s moment to shine, to introduce himself to America, and come galloping out of the gate. Instead, he struggled to keep pace with a group of candidates who have as much shot at becoming President as I do.

It wasn’t just me who came to this conclusion after last night’s debate, either. Politico’s headline when it was over: “Tim Pawlenty Battled to a Draw”.

Frank Luntz’s focus group awarded Herman Cain the victory, with Pawlenty coming in even behind Santorum — besting only the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson sideshows.

National Journal declared Pawlenty to be “lackluster” and said he didn’t look any better than Cain or Santorum, either.

Hotline On Call said Herman Cain “dominated” while Pawlenty “stayed true to his ‘Minnesota nice’ reputation and played it safe.”

Intrade investors weren’t impressed, either: Pawlenty slipped more than a point and a half in trading last night, before recovering about half of that this morning.

I have to be honest: I found Cain to be engaging, but I didn’t think he dominated in the way many of these other outlets did. But that’s the main narrative coming out of last night: Cain won and Pawlenty was unimpressive, in an average sort of way.

As a Pawlenty fan, I hope this was just a warm-up and when the real debates begin he’ll be more on top of his game. I have a difficult time seeing the Pawlenty of last night’s debate breaking into the top tier of candidates as everyone (including me) expects him to, and an even more difficult time seeing him go toe-to-toe with Obama and come out with a victory.

NY1/YNN-Marist New York 2012 Republican Primary Survey

• Rudy Giuliani 23%
• Mitt Romney 20%
• Sarah Palin 12%
• Mike Huckabee 10%
• Donald Trump 7%
• Ron Paul 7%
• Newt Gingrich 3%
• Tim Pawlenty 2%
• Mitch Daniels 2%
• Herman Cain 2%
• Michele Bachmann 1%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Jon Huntsman 0%
• Gary Johnson 0%
• Undecided 10%

Survey of 205 registered Republicans was conducted April 25-29, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 7 percentage points. Political ideology: 58% Conservative; 33% Moderate; 9% Liberal.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

The Pew Research Center has created a fun new quiz to assess political leanings (full disclosure: I scored Libertarian). Aaron Blake and Chris Cillizza, of the Washington Post, wrote a follow-up on the quiz, analyzing the increasingly difficult-to-pin-down American Independent:

Just six years ago, only 30 percent of Americans identified as independents. Today, that number is 37 percent.

And while growing so fast (and 7 percent in six years is fast), they are also diversifying very quickly, with strongly divergent views between different groups of independents.

Pew identifies three different kinds of independents. Libertarians and Disaffecteds are 21 percent of registered voters and lean towards Republicans; Post-Moderns are 14 percent and lean towards Democrats.

…Disaffecteds, for example, believe in helping the needy more than most Democrats. Libertarians side with business more than even the solidly Republican Staunch Conservatives. And Post-Moderns accept homosexuality more than most Democrats. The three independents groups are also less religious, on the whole, than either Republicans or most Democrats.

…While the middle of the road is often the best track to getting independent votes, the data suggests that may appeal to one set of independents but irritate another.

For example, cracking down on Wall Street is a pretty popular (and populist) message to run on. But while it may help lure Disaffecteds — the group in the roughest economic shape — it risks completely alienating Libertarians, and even Post-Moderns are pretty business-friendly.

The authors conclude by arguing that President Obama must rediscover the magic he had with Post-Moderns (I would place many of the young voters who flocked to Obama in this category) in 2008, as they largely propelled him to his victory but have since strayed from his corner.

With this in mind, the trick for the eventual Republican nominee may become luring over enough Libertarians and Disaffecteds to counter the formidable coalition available to Obama (of course, turning out as much of the base as possible will help…). In the authors’ words:

If Obama can successfully unite the Post-Moderns with regular Democrats, that accounts for 54 percent of registered voters and makes him a heavy favorite for reelection.

Not coincidentally, the President received approximately 53% of the popular vote in 2008.

Unfortunately, the task of uniting Libertarians and Disaffecteds appears rather steep, as their priorities clash. Who can rise to this challenge? I would argue that Tim Pawlenty has the potential. Does anyone have other suggestions? Let’s discuss!

I can’t believe how time flies by! Didn’t we just have an election?

There are relatively low stakes in tonight’s first 2012 Republican presidential debate, as the field will consist of just five candidates:  Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum. However, Gov. Tim Pawlenty has a chance to make a big impression on undecided primary voters with a standout performance.

Have at it in the comments!

SurveyUSA/WFLA-TV Tampa-St. Pete Political Poll

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as President?

• Approve 48% (48%)
• Disapprove 49% (48%)

Among Democrats

• Approve 82% (80%)
• Disapprove 14% (17%)

Among Republicans

• Approve 18% (13%)
• Disapprove 79% (82%)

Among Independents

• Approve 39% (47%)
• Disapprove 59% (50%)

Among Men

• Approve 44% (50%)
• Disapprove 54% (46%)

Among Women

• Approve 52% (45%)
• Disapprove 44% (50%)

(more…)

Just a reminder, our open forum for the first debate of the 2012 cycle will go live at 8:30pm EST. These things do get a bit heated (even by R4’12 standards), but they are also an awful lot of fun.

Movement is from the last update one week ago:

Only candidates who have announced an exploratory committee or a candidacy, or who have greater than a 2% chance at the nomination are included. Yellow indicates an exploratory committee; green indicates an official candidacy.

As a followup to my previous post on McMillan, McMillan recently spoke at Princeton as part of their Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Distinguished Speaker Series. He has quite a bit to say about a potential 2012 run. Here are some choice quotes from McMillan:

“Barack Obama, president of the United States, head of the Democratic Party. Correct? And he is black. Correct? The Democratic Party logo is a donkey or an ass. Correct? When I say that I’m coming after Barack Obama’s black ass, what am I saying? I’m coming after the Democratic Party.”

“Democrats and Republicans are all alike…It is my job to come in and get rid of them…They are worried about the corporations they have invested in and the nonprofit organizations the government is pouring money into.”

“While we were bailing [General Motors] out, your parents had to put money toward the home that got foreclosed, put money toward the car that got repoed,” McMillan said. “You still have to pay them money you borrowed for the home and pay them money you borrowed for the car, but while the government was giving [General Motors] your money, you still had to pay [the government] off.”

“I am going to make an effort in every city, town and county in this country — for everyone who’s thinking of ever running for re-election in this country, I’m coming after them…They got a problem. I’ll put my combat boots on; I’m walking across America.”

He also doubled down on his open invitation for Donald Trump to be his running mate. When asked about his celebrity status, McMillan said, “I’ve done something that they say is a phenomenon, is hilarious…I don’t know. All I’m doing is speaking my tongue and telling the truth. I’m not afraid to talk.” No, he’s not afraid to talk – and not afraid to say whatever he’s thinking at the time.

For those who may not recall – McMillan has ran for the following offices on the “Rent is Too Damn High Party” ticket:

• Mayor of New York City – 1993, 2005, 2009
• Governor of New York – 1994, 2006, 2010

We’ll see what kind of splash he makes in the GOP primary if he formally announces for President / forms an exploratory committee.

_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.

This just posted:

During a Huck PAC fundraiser yesterday in the DC area – Gov. Huckabee was asked about a Presidential run and he told the group privately the same thing he’s said countless times publicly. The Governor’s comment was tweeted by a Congressman who was in the meeting: ‘people that say they definitely know I’m not running, don’t know – those that say they definitely know I am, don’t know – I don’t know.’ What does it say about the news when a Congressman can report real quotes that actually came from Governor Huckabee – while journalists use other sources and unsubstantiated rumor?

The Governor has been clear – his timeline for a decision is this summer and that has not changed. Fox is aware of the Governor’s timetable and he is aware of his limitations in considering another run.

(emphasis added by MBL)

The 2012 GOP Presidential nomination train has blown its whistle, and the conductor has cried, “All Aboard!” The train has began to roll and is picking up speed. The longer Mike waits, the further down the tracks it will be, and the more ground he will have to make up. Granted, he is further down the platform than most and can wait a little longer to grab hold. However, if he waits too long, he is going to be left behind.

Quinnipiac 2012 Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Approve 52% (46%) [42%]
• Disapprove 40% (48%) [48%]

Among Democrats

• Approve 88% (85%) [80%]
• Disapprove 9% (9%) [13%]

Among Republicans

• Approve 18% (11%) [9%]
• Disapprove 74% (86%) [81%]

Among Independents

• Approve 47% (41%) [39%]
• Disapprove 41% (52%) [50%

(more…)

As I have been telling you all along, it is only a matter of time:

Jon Huntsman has had one for months. Mitch Daniels effectively has one, too. And as it turns out, so, now, does Mike Huckabee. It’s become the strangest phenomenon of the 2012 GOP primary: The campaign-in-waiting.

For months, the political class has believed that Huckabee would not run in the 2012 election cycle because he wasn’t taking any organizational steps. (Activists in New Hampshire, too, said in March that his messaging was off, which suggested to them he would stay out.) That has changed, and a scheduled appearance at the Republican Leadership Conference in Louisiana in June and a fundraiser Wednesday in Washington are part of the latest evidence.

According to a confidant of Rollins who has been slated for a high-level position in the potential campaign, “Ed has had long and serious discussions with Mike as recently as this past weekend.” Rollins would manage the first phase of the Huckabee campaign this time.

On a national level, Rollins has gotten verbal agreements from experienced Republican operatives who would join the team. A political director, fundraising team, media team, communications director, press staff, policy shop and opposition research outfit are locked and loaded. Serious discussions with a respected national pollster are ongoing, and several national Republican operatives have told RealClearPolitics that they’ve gotten calls with the message: “This thing is happening. Do you want to be a part of it?”

David Beasley, a former governor of South Carolina who would chair Huckabee’s efforts in the Palmetto State, said he has spoken directly with Huckabee several times in the past month, and had a serious discussion with him several days ago.

Beasley said he phoned Huckabee last week after it had been reported that he had “released” some of the staffers on his first campaign to work for other candidates and asked Huckabee to explain. Some in Huckabee’s circle believe that those lines are being fed by former staffers who have gone on to other campaigns and need Huckabee to stay out of the race so it doesn’t hurt their own candidates’ chances. What’s more, the South Carolinian said it may have been true a year ago when Huckabee seemed less destined to run, but it isn’t now.

The gathering national team has a different take, though. Rollins has worked on nine presidential campaigns and has developed many contacts over that time, and he has recruited a team over the last four months that will be ready to roll if Huckabee pulls the trigger.

As a consequence of that more professional, experienced team, some of the players who surrounded Huckabee last time aren’t necessarily needed anymore. In other words, Huckabee was an upstart last time and couldn’t attract top-tier talent, and he didn’t even have some of the most significant leaders of the religious right on board when he started in 2007.

Be sure to read the entire piece at RCP.

I’ve posted before here on gadfly candidate Fred Karger and his bid to be included in the South Carolina debate to be held tonight. I thought he should be included in the debate – the first national poll I’ve seen that’s included him showed him at 1% nationally, he’s an announced candidate for President, and was ready to pay the filing fee in South Carolina. Those facts are still true. He did not meet the requirement of five national polls showing him at 1% or higher, but being that he has not been included in 5 national polls – the first poll including him showing that support should have met that requirement, in my opinion.

That said – Karger still plans to be at the debate…but in the audience instead. If he comports himself with grace / dignity, I think he may get a boost. Here’s his statement on the debate:

I am very disappointed that I will not be participating in tonight’s debate, but I will be in the audience…I had hoped to be on stage with the other candidates, but I understand the rules set by the organizers, and as long as they were uniformly enforced, I have no objection. I am very excited to be in Greenville. Rina Shah, our Communications Director and I will be in the Peace Center tonight to watch the proceedings. I will be emailing a live feed into the Huffington Post during the debate, and will be available to comment on the proceedings immediately following the debate. 

He plans to have a press conference outside of the debate center at 3:00 PM today.

While I still think he should have been allowed to participate, I understand their decision to not allow him. Again, I just hope that he acts with dignity / grace in the audience and does not comport himself in a manner unfitting of a President. I’d hate to find out that what I perceived as a serious, albeit entirely unknown, campaign was not one. All that said – the Executive Director of GOPROUD Jimmy LaSalvia has a different take on Karger. When asked about Karger’s campaign LaSalvia said, “I think his 15 minutes are up…Now that the race is on and the credible candidates are launching their campaigns, Fred should find something else to do. His run for president stunt has run its course.” When the Executive Director of a prominent, gay conservative organization doesn’t even have your back to be included in a debate – maybe Karger needs to realize he has no base of support.

_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.

New York Times/CBS News Survey on Barack Obama and the Killing of Osama bin Laden
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Approve 57%
• Disapprove 37%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling foreign policy?

• Approve 52%
• Disapprove 34%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 34%
• Disapprove 55%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation with Afghanistan?

• Approve 61%
• Disapprove 29%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the threat of terrorism?

• Approve 72%
• Disapprove 19%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama handled the pursuit of Osama bin Laden?

• Approve 85%
• Disapprove 7%

(more…)

Texas State U.S. (I knew that!) Representative and probable presidential candidate, Ron Paul holds three views about abortion that are self-contradictory, as taken from his book Liberty Defined:

1. Life Begins At Conception (Or at sometime afterward).

Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.

This is not a principled position but rather a pragmatic one.  It is Paul’s view that killing a baby the day after conception is just birth control.  He is technically correct.  Killing a baby 10 minutes before it is born is also birth control, but neither practice is contraception.  He is also suggesting that any murders that can’t be prevented or detected should not be “policed”.  This could also apply to any other abortion, as well as the taking of lives in nursing homes or hospices, where there is no family to watch out for the victim.

2. The Federal Government Can Step in When States Permit Infanticide

If anything, the federal government has a responsibility to protect life — not grant permission to destroy it.  If a state were to legalize infanticide, it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution.

3. The Federal Government Can’t Step in to Protect Unborn Children.

Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. There are only four crimes listed in the Constitution: counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.

Apparently Paul accepts a ban on states allowing the private ownership of people.  But he is not creative enough or dedicated enough to the protection of unborn children to see how it is Constitutional to ban the private destruction of people.

Let’s try to reconcile his these three viewpoints.

First, he is often considered pro-life because he can articulate the moral position against abortion from the standpoint of being offensive or irrational.   But his own position is no less irrational.   By allowing for abortions in certain cases (rape and incest) and permitting the destruction of human beings after conception (the morning after pill), it is clear that he has left no place for a consistently rational position.

Second, by allowing for the preventing of infanticide to be in the jurisdiction of the federal government, there is no reason not to allow federal jurisdiction in abortion, unless he concedes that human beings in the womb are less than persons.

Third, as many other self-labeling pro-life politicians do, he fails at the point of implementing his viewpoint on abortion.  In turn, he must begin to twist his position on abortion to fit his actions.   This is exactly backwards.  Perhaps Paul would be the candidate of pro-lifers, if he really understood the inconsistency of his own viewpoint.

I’m growing increasingly skeptical of typical perceptions of what electability is.  There were two big lefty posts today on Daniels, one by Dana Milbanks at WaPo, and one in The New Yorker, which I just thought were laughable.  They echoed the typical refrain that because Daniels isn’t “scary” and sounds alright and on-point to them he was clearly a very electable fellow who, if he could just get past the crazies, might do alright against Obama.  This goes back to something like median-voter theory.  The idea is that you map out the electorate.  Maybe on a 1 to 100 scale.  On different issues and overall.  And so you’re generally better off going with someone who’s closer to the center (or perceived as closer to the center).  Because they’ll win everyone who’s above them on the scale (for Republicans, everyone who’s more conservative than the nominee, for Democrats everyone who’s more liberal) but they’ll also win more of the center. I continue to believe this is wrong way to think about elections.

And I’ll point to 4 examples.  US Senator Dan Coats, Governor Terry Branstad, Senator John McCain, and Ambulance-chaser Charlie Crist (watch his new commercial).  Dan Coats led by 18 points in 3 of the four polls taken in October of ’10 and by 22 points in the one closest to the election.  He ended up winning by 14.  Terry Branstad’s race seems to have not been polled at all in the closing days because he was winning so handily but he too led all of the general election polls by somewhere around 18 points.  He ended up winning by 9 points.  Both men were favorites of the establishment who’d done very well in past elections (Coats won by 17 points in the better Democratic year of 1992, Branstad had won by 22 and 15 points in his last two gubernatorial victories).  And both dramatically underperformed even while others in their party and in their states were making large, expected gains.  John McCain, who was beating Obama in general election polls- almost alone among the contenders- for all of ’07 and much of ’08- spent the summer and fall of ’08 struggling to win attention, raise money, and unify the party and was forced to accept public financing and select an untested, charismatic Governor to gin up support and close the enthusiasm gap.  And he lost by such a margin that it’s reasonably difficult to make the case that his main competitors- seemingly less electable through much of ’07 and ’08- would have done any worse.

Charlie Crist, who accumulated lots of political capital which he never spent, was well-loved by the press and touted as a potential Presidential candidate, somehow lost his party -70% approval ratings not withstanding- and went down to a defeat in a general election which will be a subject of special political science study (I assure you) for decades to come.  Without ever really becoming unpopular.  The lesson of all these, of course, is that Median-Voter Theory- in so far as it predicts that the candidate closer to the center (or perceived as closer to the center) is bound to win- is wrong.  Or it doesn’t account for everything.  It doesn’t account for the necessity of securing one’s flanks.  If you’re Caesar it is a great thing to conquer Gaul and cross the Rubicon and sweep through Africa- but mind Brutus or you shall see the dagger.

You may end up like a Branstad or a Coats- underperforming in a year where most are overperforming, but not so badly that you lose.  You may end up like a McCain- forced to make mad movements to secure your flank as your perceived strength slowly dribbles away.  Or you may end up like Crist- hucking ambulance-chasing in a 12 second commercial after you couldn’t shake a challenge to your right.  Where you won’t end up is where you expected.

To people who admire candidates like Daniels this may not be enough disincentive.  If Daniels is, perhaps, not as strong a general election candidate as he appears, well, at least he’s better than Sarah Palin (and a better ideological fit to boot).  But long term, it is bad for those who like “reasonable” candidates if those candidates underperform.  Not just because they’re increasing the incentive for the “unreasonable” people to go off the reservation (“if these electable establishment Republicans can’t win then by golly I’m going to vote for whoever I like because polls and perception don’t matter”) but they’re also weakening the ideological composition of the party.

Suppose we think of voter theory in a different way.  Instead of assuming that, in a race between a 75 and a 10, the 10 will win everyone between 0 and 40 while the 75 will win everyone between 45 and 100 (with the 41-44 cohort maybe split based on momentum, who has the greater financial resources, the political climate, etc), let’s think of an electorate where two things are occuring simultaneously.  First a candidate, is trying to persuade those in the center.  And he does this mainly by having views closer to the center, a respectful tone (which reflects the ambivalence they probably feel about ideology), and a seeming flexibility.  Second, a candidate is trying to be heard by those in the center.  And he does this by getting the organizational apparatus of his party firing on all cylinders and presenting a united and disciplined front (for Democrats: unions, the nutroots, women’s rights activists, major liberal magazines, etc- for Republicans: social conservatives, the foreign policy establishment, talk-radio, major conservative magazines, etc), and by raising money and enlisting volunteers.  A candidate who is very good at number 1 but not at number 2 is going to perpetually underperform.  They’re going to find that, despite maybe actually being closer to the median voter, they’re not always winning the median voter.  They’re going to find that they have gnats, and sometimes more than gnats, attacking them from their flank and disrupting message discipline.  They’re going to find, as often as not- especially in close elections, and especially when the opposing nominee doesn’t have the same difficulty- that they need to increasingly distance themselves from their party’s ideological center, moving closer to the other party’s.

To put it in simpler terms, at a certain point it becomes unproductive to be “electable”.  There are diminishing returns on “electability”.  A little electable- sure.  Probably electable- ok.  Mostly electable- if you insist.  But never totally electable.  Never so electable that the opposing partisans sing your praises.  That is a recipe for short-term and long-term disaster.

Right now, both Governors Pawlenty and Daniels are in single-digits in the race for the Republican nomination, yet both are considered potentially very serious contenders. It isn’t hard to see why on either account. Pawlenty governed one of America’s bluest states in a conservative manner, even winning reelection in the disastrous 2006 election cycle. Daniels has been widely praised for his fiscal conservatism and his stewardship of Indiana. Both are conservative, but not in-your-face about it, and both can probably win in the general election. The greatest obstacle to both Midwestern Governors is winning the Republican nomination, surpassing first-tier heavyweights like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. To do this, both Pawlenty and Daniels should look at the 1996 campaign of Lamar Alexander for some valuable lessons about how to run and not run for the nomination.

In many ways, there are interesting parallels between Pawlenty and Daniels and Alexander. Lamar was a two-term Governor of a state that was then purple (Clinton, Bush in 88 and Reagan all carried it), formerly in the Cabinet (as Ed. Secretary), and was widely seen as a formidable candidate in November if he got the nomination. Initially, the Governor was in single-digits, and in fact he did stay there for a pretty long time. However, as the front-runners (Dole, Gramm and Forbes) all beat up on each other, Alexander ran a generally positive campaign, and focused intensely on the grassroots. The closer the campaign got to Iowa, the higher Alexander rose in the polls. He eventually grabbed a very respectful third place in Iowa and used it to get third in New Hampshire. It looked like the sky was the limit for Alexander’s campaign.

Yet, after New Hampshire, the man who had gotten 3^rd in both Iowa and New Hampshire saw his campaign fall apart. Alexander never again got close to winning anywhere. He was out of the race by Super Tuesday. What happened?

Well, Alexander faced two crippling problems. First, his campaign gambled on the establishment front-runner, Dole, being fatally wounded by Iowa and New Hampshire, and then Alexander would attract former Dole supporters. This didn’t happen. Dole, while wounded by Buchanan’s win in New Hampshire, didn’t falter, and his establishment supporters stayed firm. The second critical factor in Alexander’s eventual defeat was that he was a victim of his own success. Third place in both Iowa and New Hampshire was a great success for someone who had been polling at 5% about a month before the NH Primary, but it wasn’t enough. Alexander couldn’t just do well, he had to win, or at least beat the frontrunner. With Dole hanging on, there was no room for Alexander to grow his support. To become the nominee, Alexander had to knock out Dole, collect all the moderate/establishment support and then overcome Buchanan. Coming in a strong third, while nice, was simply not enough.

I think that Pawlenty and Daniels could face a similar problem to that of Lamar Alexander. They both could become a serious contender for the nomination, but the climb won’t be easy. Not only are they competing with the other 2^nd tier candidates for name recognition, funds, and a presence in the race, but they then have to take on the other establishment favorite, Mitt Romney. It’s hard, but like Alexander, both Daniels and Pawlenty are appealing candidates who could find a peculiar niche in the 2012 field. Their task is to turn that appeal into votes. In this, they could do well to read up on the campaign of another two-term Governor who tried to unseat an incumbent Democrat President.

PPP (D) Arizona 2012 Senatorial Survey

• Gabrielle Giffords (D) 54%
• Sarah Palin (R) 36%

• Gabrielle Giffords (D) 48%
• Jeff Flake (R) 41%

• Gabrielle Giffords (D) 57%
• JD Hayworth (R) 31%

• Terry Goddard (D) 49%
• Sarah Palin (R) 40%

• Jeff Flake (R) 45%
• Terry Goddard (D) 45%

• Terry Goddard (D) 51%
• JD Hayworth (R) 33%

• Ed Pastor (D) 45%
• Sarah Palin (R) 43%

• Jeff Flake (R) 46%
• Ed Pastor (D) 34%

• Ed Pastor (D) 42%
• JD Hayworth (R) 37%

• Phil Gordon (D) 45%
• Sarah Palin (R) 41%

• Jeff Flake (R) 47%
• Phil Gordon (D) 33%

• Phil Gordon (D) 44%
• JD Hayworth (R) 36%

(more…)

Suffolk University New Hampshire 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Mitt Romney 35%
• Rudy Giuliani 8%
• Ron Paul 8%
• Donald Trump 8%

Survey of 400 likely GOP primary voters was conducted April 30 – May 2, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

UNH/WMUR New Hampshire 2012 Republican Nomination Survey

• Mitt Romney 36% (40%)
• Donald Trump 11% (3%)
• Rudy Giuliani 7% (10%)
• Mike Huckabee 6% (7%)
• Ron Paul 6% (5%)
• Sarah Palin 4% (6%)
• Newt Gingrich 4% (6%)
• Michele Bachmann 4%
• Tim Pawlenty 2% (7%)
• Mitch Daniels 2% (0%)
• Haley Barbour 1% (1%)
• Rick Santorum 0% (1%)
• Jon Huntsman 0%
• Gary Johnson 0% (0%)
• Someone else 1% (4%)
• Don’t know yet 14% (10%)

(more…)